Why Hagel is wrong for Pentagon

The bitter tone of gridlock in Washington has left many Americans hoping for a more collaborative environment to face the country’s most pressing challenges. Changes in the president’s Cabinet presented a prime opportunity for coming together. Instead of seeking consensus, President Barack Obama has forced confrontation with the nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska to be America’s next secretary of defense.

Unlike outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who was approved unanimously by the Senate, Hagel is expected to provoke a divisive confirmation process — at a time when Congress should be focused on urgent budget issues that could dramatically change America’s defense strategy and capabilities.

Story Continued Below

If not averted, disastrous military cuts are set to go into effect less than two months from now. The impact threatens to jeopardize military readiness and puts more than 1 million American jobs on the line. Doubts that Congress and the White House can reach an agreement have already prompted the Pentagon to order cutbacks, including a hiring freeze on civilian workers and slashing costs from military base operations.

A better choice for the country’s top defense post would be a leader with mainstream appeal and unequivocal bipartisan support. A contentious confirmation process does nothing to strengthen America’s defense capabilities and global pre-eminence. With so much at stake in the coming weeks, the president’s controversial pick sends the wrong signal to our allies and adversaries around the world.

To be sure, Hagel is a respected Vietnam veteran who has served our country with honor. But the merits of his military service, although admirable, do not dismiss a record of questionable positions and sentiments reflecting a polarizing worldview, which could have far-reaching implications for the Defense Department.

My opposition to this nomination stems in part from Hagel’s flawed vision for America’s role in the world and whether his selection signals a move toward a weaker defense by a second Obama administration. In choosing Hagel, the president seems to suggest that his approach will be to downplay American leadership rather than strengthen it. In the past, Hagel’s decisions and statements have drawn significant concerns from Democrats and Republicans. One is right to wonder whether Hagel’s views on issues affecting the country’s national security interests would shape his doctrine as defense secretary. At the very least, his nomination calls into question the national security priorities of the president’s second term.

As The Washington Post noted in an editorial in December, “Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term.” A thorough debate about these positions should be at the forefront of upcoming Senate hearings.